You repeatedly edited the page on Steven Crowder vis-à-vis his demonetization by YouTube wherein it says that YouTube demonetized him after a gayHispanic journalist named Carlos Maza, whose Simple English Wikipedia page has since been deleted, said that Crowder was bullying him by calling him a “lispy queer”. You have removed the part wherein it explains the reason why Maza said that Crowder was bullying him and as such raised a good number of legitimate questions. If the page says that YouTube demonetized Steven Crowder after Maza accused Crowder of transgressing YouTube’s rules against bullying that raises the question of what did Crowder do or say that led to Maza’s decision to levy that charge. Even if the page says YouTube demonetized Steven Crowder for bullying Carlos Maza then the question is why did YouTube consider Maza to have been so doing. Even if the Simple English Wikipedia page simply says that Crowder was bullying Carlos Maza and was therefore demonetized by YouTube then the question remains what constitutes the bullying in question. And if those questions are unanswered, I am aware that I just began a sentence with a conjunction it was the only way to avoid a run-on sentence, then it becomes possible to label any behaviour as offensive and worthy of punishment without explanation of what said offending behaviour is. One doesn’t say Richard B. Spencer is a racist and offer no further explanation whatsoever. One demonstrates that he is racist by bringing up his calls for the mass expulsion of all non-white people from the United States thus proving that he is. When one calls Owen Benjamin an anti-Semite, which he is, one substantiates this claim by bringing up the demonstrable fact that he praised Adolf Hitler. You don’t just say this person is a bigot or a bully without explanation of why this is the case. So now that I have clarified, I will return to the page on Steven Crowder and specify the nature of the offensive remarks which resulted in Carlos Maza’s denunciation of Crowder as engaged in bullying and in Crowder’s demonetization. If you still for some unfathomable reason consider this to be vandalism then I encourage you to vocalize your concerns on Talk:Steven Crowder and hope that we can then engage in a civil discussion of our disagreement. Thank you. 198.200.115.29 (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

A civil discussion would not begin with tone policing from an anonymous account. Let me know when you are willing to engage civilly instead of concern trolling. --Gotanda (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You know Wikipedia editors edit anonymously all the time. An anonymous account can be used for an entire myriad of reasons aside from a desire to engage in tone policing and concern trolling. That said, as much as I hate to admit it, your charge that I was less than civil when I vocalized my concerns is not without merit and for that I apologize. (I’m not going to say “my sincerest apologies” because when I apologize I prefer the assumption of sincerity to one of insincerity). I don’t think that you have bad motives for your edit if that’s what you believe. And I acknowledge that I can occasionally get overly frustrated when my edits are continually reverted. I also know, and this has nothing to do with you, that I once edited the plot section of the Wikipedia page on the novel The Naked and the Dead by Norman Mailer, the English Wikipedia not the Simple English Wikipedia I’m not sure whether or not the latter has one on Mailer’s book, though now that I mentioned it I’m probably going to check, to incorporate relevant information about one of the characters. In response another editor not only reverted the edit but proclaimed me guilty of vandalism demands that I be blocked from editing and as this particular editor had previously levied the same charge against me after I asked a question in a Talk page and made the same demand and I had reasoned with that person then though the question was still edited out I found that I could not resist speaking daggers to that person , to use Shakespeare’s phrase and after that was effective though the former wasn’t I fear I became a tad overzealous when wrongly accused of vandalism. And I am not offering this as justification for my prior lack of civility in our discourse for which I am sorry and must make no excuses. The blame for that lies squarely on myself you’re right about that. I bring this anecdote up solely because I realized then that there are people who will in the name of concern simply revert the edits of others regardless of whether or not it is necessary to do so and claimed it was in the name of concern and I suspect that those are the people to whom you refer as concern trolls. It is because of that experience that I began to wonder if someone were to send me a message on Wikipedia which disputed one of my edits in a self-righteous, arrogant, pedantic, holier than thou, which I am ashamed to say is a fitting description of the message I sent you I would likely take it very poorly. That is what led me to the realization that I owe you an apology. You are a human being who deserves as much respect as I or anyone else does and I sometimes fear that the mechanization of communication in fora like Wikipedia sometimes leads people of good intentions, including myself, to fail to register that fact. I am not proud to acknowledge that but it is the case. I do hope that despite the spectre of our poor introduction, you really never get a second chance to make a good first impression, that despite my prior failures to live up to my own standards of civility and etiquette that my intentions were good. I believe that as vehemently as you and I may or may not disagree on certain issues relating to the appropriate content of the Simple English Wikipedia page on Steven Crowder civility can exist if we assume each other to have the best possible intentions for as long as we are capable of so doing. And even if you conclude that I really am just a vandal or a troll, which I hope you don’t, you can still vocalize your qualms about the incorporation of the offensive language Crowder used into his Simple English Wikipedia page at the very least to make the case to other editors who frequent it as to why I am wrong on this issue. Who knows if the consensus emerges in your favour then you may at the very least have the satisfaction of knowing that our fellow Wikipedians agree that I’m an idiot. I hope that I have made a compelling case for why you should engage in Crowder’s talk page and that unlike my first message, for which I cannot apologize to you enough, this one was civil. And if I have failed in the former I hope that I have succeeded in the latter aim of keeping this message as civil as possible. And if I have failed in that regard well, suffice it to say I really hope that I haven’t. I appreciate your candour in calling me out for failing to live up to my standards vis-à-vis civility either way. That is something for which I am grateful to you. Thank you. 198.200.115.29 (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

May I know why my edit is reverted ?
Please tell the reason for revert

I wrote the full article and now I am editing few errors. Why are you reverting, tell me the reason ?

Please read the article before reverting. All are facts, nothing derogatory or false information.
Can we discuss this ?

Because you have put in a huge unsimplified copy and paste. This is Simple English Wikipedia. Your contributions must be simple. They would have been quick deleted. Do this in your user space or in a sandbox. Gotanda (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't know that, correct me if I am wrong. I was correcting the spellings and putting some sentences in meaningful way. Please check. Once again sorry for not following the policy, kindly request not to delete the content.

Well, now you know. Please read this Help Section before you continue to edit. What you are posting is not helpful here. Gotanda (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I will not edit this page anymore. Kind request not to remove the full content. Do you want me to make the article smaller. may be I can help you make it a small article by removing few elaboration.

Can I expand it a little, will not include all of what it had.

You need to read all of this first before you edit that article any more. Gotanda (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I read, I know it should not be more elaborative and should be in simple English, I will follow that if you permit me.

I will give a try, if not worthy you please revert it.

Please let me know how its now. Removed all elaboration and made it simple.

I just copy the list of the towns of the taluks. Its really hard for anyone to make the list with 80 or 90 names of villages. If I left it without the list, still it is an useless article. Another one is i just copied the format in the first taluk article. In the other intro and demographics, the format is just followed. The first article is the fully copied one. The others were just typed by me and you are making my articles deleted. You have the rights only to delete my first taluk article, the Cuddalore taluk. I want the others to be restored. I have another issue, the intro and content are much simplified and why is these article are deleted. First tell me the reasons to me and delete the articles. First give me time. Just inform before you delete, not as a command but as a request. Understand them. Leave me just copy the list alone and restore the deleted articles. Thank you. Also reply in my talk page for this.--wiki tamil 100 (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess I would ask why were they there in the first place? Carter has positions which are significantly to the left of many in the Democratic Party. Look at his record and statements on human rights, Guantanamo, Israel/Palestine etc. Apparently he voted for Sanders. McCaskill is definitely not on the left of the party but given her electorate where she has to run she supports the Democratic Party. I think you can make a case that some of her votes against party are highly calculated (Keystone) and less motivated by ideology. Her Trump Score looks high but for her district not so bad. Unless someone declares themselves to be conservative, there will be some element of judgement in deciding if they are one or not. Gotanda (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

HI, please accept my apologies. I noticed the first change to education-educational and 1) didn't realize that the way it displayed had changed 2) didn't notice your correction of spelling students. Thank you. Gotanda (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The displayed [[education]]al vs [[education|educational]] ( educational vs educational ) has no visible change, rather it was just an attempt at cleaning up the wiki markup as both render identically, however the first is just a little cleaner, the markup is more simple. Since I was correcting a typo I thought I might as well do other minor cleanup/corrections too. Hopefully that helps. Nunabas (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gotanda, many thanks for picking up the continued complex edits by Chrisangelo23. Would you mind saying something in the discussion on Wikipedia:Simple talk which is keeping track of his edits, as well as trying to decide what to do with him. Many thanks, DaneGeld (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, IP user, I think Gotanda has made it abundantly clear that they do not wish to communicate with you over this matter. This is their talk page, and the fact that they have continued to remove your comments is their business. Please do not persist in replacing your remarks. If you have any issues with the request for deletion, I recommend you go to the page where the deletion is being discussed, and take part in the discussion properly (i.e, don't just type FAKE in the text - Talk to people). Regards, DaneGeld (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Re Nguyễn Văn Sơn, I'm afraid this is destined to go to RfD, though to me the competition "Mr Global, an annual male beauty pageant" seems a worthless event for doubtful people. As about half-dozen of my recent deletes were moved over to RfD, I suppose my rather traditional outlook on the world is not quite in harmony with the younger generation! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your strong and consistent work. And, thanks for letting me know about this. I do tend to push the QD a bit but I figure that is the quickest and cleanest if an admin signs off on it. If I were an admin, I'd be less aggressive on them for sure. Off to the ever growing RfD queue! -- Gotanda (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Gotanda, thanks for the instructions. I have received your email on my talk page. I'v followed your instruction, added

Someone thinks this article should not be quickly deleted.Someone thinks this article should not be quickly deleted, and has asked for it to be left on Wikipedia. Please talk about it on this page's talk page.Note that this request is not a guarantee, and the page may still be deleted if it meets the quick deletion criteria, or if an explanation is not provided very soon. This template should not be removed from a page still marked with a quick deletion template.

on the page of James Barre. I have tried to add reliable sources available online. Though i have followed several Wikipedia pages and layout to build Mr. Barre's Wikipedia page. I admit, i'm not fully aware of Wikipedia layout and markups.

I do think that James Barre is notable and covered by the news sources. Will you please help me and remove the warnings from the header?. Also, let me know how can i improve the Wikipedia page. Thanks. Sarah Ratliff (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I really don't think the language is hard. I did simplify every sentence I took fron en.wiki, and there are a lot of sections there that I ignored because they were hard to simplify. BTW, I'm not a native English speaker, I may have an advanced level, but me not being a native speaker and being able to completely understand what is written, I guess that makes it simple, thanks MohamedTalk 15:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi gretings, Sir, I saw the message in my talkpage about the quick deletation of some articles (Mulavana, Mundroethuruth, Mylakkadu). I made a mistake please forgive to me. I will simplify and change that articles. Two of them were deleted. Kindly please undelete them.--Path slopu (Talk) 16:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Then, please stop copying from the English Wikipedia. There is no need to have two sets of articles that are the same or nearly the same. --Gotanda (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable advice. I will create articles in simple language do not copy the articles in enwiki as such in future. Kindly please undelete the deleted articles.----Path slopu (Talk) 12:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I cannot undeleted the articles. I do not have that ability. --Gotanda (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that I revisit it, as the latter has no sources as well as it's other issues it might qualify for A4, although I believe it's better to RfD if it's borderline-claiming notability.. The first one, although it likely isn't notable itself, it is a television series of a notable entity, Star Plus, and I think that it's notability is for an RfD to decide. Vermont (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6:@Vermont:Right. I agree that notability is not inherited. Also, looking at the actual Notability text what do we have?

"Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations" These programs do not air (yet).

"(either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." There is no reliable information about the channel's distribution or viewership.

"In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." No reliable sources. Tellychakkar is not a reliable source. I tend to look at it that any program that is actually notable will attract media coverage in a reliable, general market publication--not just blogs and PR sites. Sending all of these promotional stubs to RfD is not the best use of editors' time and energy. I think QD is the way to go. --Gotanda (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Gotanda,
I nominated Seethakathi (film) for deletion (regular deletion). In short: I think we have no ways of assessing notability, and this wiki is likely the wrong audience for the movie. Best regards. --Eptalon (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this wiki is a perfect place for tamil and other Indian movie related articles (not talking about this specific one) if they are notable. The thing is, tamil people or people using any other languages (Bengali, Bhojpuri, Nepali etc) have very few articles on their wiki. Plus they might not have (generally not) advance English knowledge so providing it here in Basic English will be helpful. I also want to include the fact that many people like to read the articles in english though they have it in their language (this is based on my observation) due to western influence and lack of translation for technical terms in their language.-BRP ever 09:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good place for articles in simplified English about Tamil culture, traditional or popular culture, that is notable. This is not the place for movie previews. --Gotanda (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Gotanda,

since you live in Japan, and know some Japanese, could you have a look at Jimanyaki, and handle the respective request for deletion, or add a comment there (Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2018/Jimanyaki here). I have no idea, if the spelling is correct, nor do I know Japanese cuisine. I didn't find any meaningful results with the spelling given. --Eptalon (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eptalon,

Sorry I missed that. I was on travelling. But, it looks like things went well with the deletion. All those recipe pages from that user had serious issues. Thank you for asking me. Please do again and I hope I will be online at the time. --Gotanda (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi! It would be great to have more people patrolling new pages. I just go to https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages and I see some pages highlighted in yellow. These have been created by IP or new users. I click the link "Hide patrolled changes" so I just see the ones that need patrolling. Then, I open a bunch of them in tabs and: click "Mark as patrolled" if it is fine, simplify and mark as patrolled if needed, or mark for Quick Deletion.

One thing, I think Patroller is a status you get after editing for a while, so if my note above doesn't match what you see, maybe ask an admin. Thanks for asking me. --Gotanda (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Gotanda Thank you for explaining to me. I now know how to mark new pages as patrolled. HutheMeow

How exactly do you revert vandalism and achieved rollbacker right? HutheMeow

Here's one explanation, but basically just keep on editing and keep an eye out for vandalism or unhelpful contributions. There aren't that many frequent editors here consistently, so help is always needed. --Gotanda (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

That's the thing. It requires human judgement, so it isn't listed on a page. You can find it by watching New Pages as you are doing. Also, check your Watchlist. Finally, just watch new changes, especially for changes by IP users. Happy hunting! --Gotanda (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You had an alt account you used to use to teach your students with. Just gone through it 😁 and found that you had students --DJ (✉ - ✔) 21:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I did use the site with that account a long time ago. I have since moved to a different institution and no longer teach courses where editing here would fit in the curriculum. --Gotanda (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Thanks for helping to simplify two pages (A Fish Called Wanda and Aptivate) that I created from en.wikipedia. I do a 'first pass' of simplyfying the content before saving the first version but your experience in choosing simpler words and phrases is a great help. Please have a look at other the other pages I created/copied to see if you can help there too. I list them on my user page -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sure! Glad you thought my changes were helpful. And, I get your approach of taking a first pass and then polishing later. That often works for me too. You notice different things at different times. These days I mostly patrol the New Pages and do some random bits and bobs here and there. Hope to get a couple Good Articles done soon. Please jump in if you notice any of my edits need smoothing out. And, welcome. --Gotanda (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi,
I see that you reverted my recent edit on Venipuncture. The page is named "venipuncture" so that must be the first name stated on the page. Please try to reach consensus, don't edit war. Thank you. ToBeCloud (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. I was editing Blood draw to make it simple. As it should be. This wiki is not to be medicalized as EnWP is. --Gotanda (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gotanda: Looks like the move you just made on that page is was a cut-and-paste move. I'm sorry, but it has to be reverted. ToBeCloud (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Venipuncture a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Venipuncture. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — ToBeCloud (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed the edit history on that page so it could no longer in any way be considered a cut and paste move. I was going to say no point in edit warring over it now but then realized ToBeCloud is indeffed already. Either way your simplified version is still there, just with the added history. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have just waited for the indef on ToBeCloud to come in. --Gotanda (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I see you reverted my edits, what can I do here if those are incorrect? Sun Sunris (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

One, stop being rude in the edit summaries. Two, look at New Changes. Look at an active, constructive editor like say TDKR Chicago 101 and follow their example--do like they do. But, mostly this is not a place for playing around. We have a one strike rule on Simple for people already banned on EnWP. If you vandalize, are rude, or just playing, you will be banned. Start making substantial, correct, and helpful changes and you will be welcome. --Gotanda (talk)

== Deleting the article ==

Please help to delete the article called <<Cell differentiation>>, because another article, which is much better (called <<Cellular differentiation>>) already exists (those 2 are about the same thing).

Hello Gotanda, thank you for participating in Wikipedia Asian Month 2019. We are grateful for your contributions! All the pages you created help the world know more about Asia and Asian cultures. You have created four or more pages that were accepted so you will receive a postcard for Wikipedia Asian Month 2019. To get the postcard please fill out this form within 7 days. Thank you.

Hi, I saw that you tagged SpaceX for complexity. As I am a major contributor of that article, can you please tell me what sections need simplification? I'd appreciate it. Thank you. rollingbarrels (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, (Update, sorry. I see you asked sections--really all of it.)

run it through a vocabulary analyzer such as https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/comp/ rewriting with simple words is better or linking is second best. "accomplished this feat" --> "done this".

then look for idiomatic speech that is not simple. "seed money"

many complex sentences with dependent clauses or phrases and not simple SVO structure. Here is one at random, "This contract, designed by NASA to provide "seed money" through Space Act Agreements for developing new space opportunities, NASA paid SpaceX $396 million to work on the cargo configuration of the Dragon spacecraft, while SpaceX spent more than $500 million to develop the Falcon 9 launch vehicle."

Hope that helps. We have a lot of complex pages here that still need to be simplified. I found SpaceX by hitting "Show any page". --Gotanda (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to Wikipedia. However, some of your changes, like those to "Butter", did not seem to be helpful and have been reverted or removed. If you want to try out changing Wikipedia to learn more about how it works, please use the sandbox. May you please explain the revert you did here as it re-added vandalism. Arthurfan828 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Arthurfan, sorry, I think that was just a misclick. You would see that and that a "Welcome" message was not needed if you looked at my edit history. Will try to click more accurately in the future. --Gotanda (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I went and had a look. My error was that you had multiple changes. Some helpful; some not. I have simplified the page. --Gotanda (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You've rolled back some of my changes without saying why.I am trying to make articles less one-sided and you are making them more so.Please explain.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me which roll back you feel is incorrect and why. "Less one-sided" is not necessarily better. That can make articles less accurate if one "side" is not neutral. If you wish to have this discussion, please make an account. IP editors may of course edit, but an account makes discussion easier. Also, we have a lot of IP vandals on articles such as the ones you are editing. --Gotanda (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

First,thank you for including a reason the second time you rolled back Transgender.By nature neither side of a disagreement is neutral...the article needs to present both sides.To treat the transgender advocates as the authority on whether the transgender advocates are right or wrong is extreme bias.I'm not rewriting the article to say they're wrong,but to make clear that there are people who say they're wrong.I have controlled this IP address for about twenty years and try not to register anywhere I can avoid registering.But I will address where you have rolled me back point by point:

Transgender:you 1)reinstate a mischaracterization of the Yogyakarta Principles (a couple dozen advocates getting together to decide what they believe should be international law,without the authority to bind any nation,only to recommend their positions to the authorities),2)reinstate a spelling error that isn't even repeated in the footnote,3)delete a statement of fact about what it is that some people say,with a citation to a scholar's article,and 4)reinstate a completely inaccurate description of marriage laws that I corrected.(No marriage law anywhere specifies the sexual orientation of applicants,only their sex...and once same-sex marriage is legal it is legal for people of any sexual orientation(Look here).In none of these cases are you improving the article.

Gender dysphoria:You 1)erase the fact that there is a history of disagreement over its being a disorder,2)remove the background for the decision to declassify it as a disorder,and 3)delete a citation to a peer-reviewed article about controversial observations on the subject.In each case you make the article less informative.

Trans woman:You remove a link to a video where views held by many lesbians are presented in response to opposing views,in order to remove record of these views existing.

A neutral article can not ignore the fact that certain positions are held by some people,or acknowledge those positions exclusively through the lens of contrary views necessarily being correct.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You wrote that "I have controlled this IP address for about twenty years." The address is indef blocked on EnWP. Please be aware we have a one-strike rule here for those already blocked elsewhere. --Gotanda (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Which makes no response at all to the merits of my arguments above.(The block expires next year,actually).--12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, all the postcards are postponed due to the shut down of the postal system all over the world. Hope all the postcards can arrive as soon as the postal system return and please take good care.